Impact of Google’s Monopoly Verdict

Search marketers are concerned about the long-term effects of the recent ruling that found Google to be an illegal monopoly. The decision, which followed a 10-week trial last year, raises questions about potential market disruptions and how penalties will be determined.

Here are the main responses from search advertisers:

Google’s Appeal and the Future Legal Battle

Julie Bacchini, president and founder of Neptune Moon, notes that while the court ruling declaring Google a monopoly is important, the real effects will become clear during the remedy phase and Google’s expected appeal.

“Google has stated they will appeal the ruling, and that process will be slow. However, the remedy phase will ultimately determine the practical impact of this decision,” she says.

Bacchini adds that this case also sets the stage for the upcoming Google advertising trial in September. Much of the information from this case will likely be used in that trial.

“Monopolistic practices have often gone unchecked since the Reagan administration, and this case, along with similar ones, aims to address that. The App Store cases follow a similar path,” she explains.

“If the Sherman Antitrust Act had been properly enforced over the past 25 years, the business landscape would be different. Unfortunately, it wasn’t, and we see the results today.”

She also points out that, like any public company, Google is primarily focused on meeting quarterly expectations, which can sometimes make it seem like they are overly driven by profit.

“There are many possible grounds for appeal, but the testimony and internal documents presented could make it difficult for Google in the advertising case. It’s possible this case was strategically aimed at strengthening that upcoming trial,” Bacchini concludes.

Oscar Ford, CEO and PPC specialist, finds the recent ruling against Google both intriguing and significant. He anticipates a prolonged legal battle due to Google’s decision to appeal the court’s decision.

“Google is set to appeal the ruling, which means this issue will likely drag on for an extended period,” Ford remarks. “If the intent is to dismantle the existing monopoly, splitting Google into separate companies might be the only viable option. It’s a drastic measure, but it could be necessary to address the monopoly effectively.”

Ford also comments on Google’s response to the ruling. “Their reaction is quite amusing, but they do raise a valid point. Google has developed the most advanced search engine available, and for many years, no other search engine has come close to matching its capabilities,” he adds. “This long-standing dominance underscores the challenge of addressing monopolistic practices in today’s digital landscape.”

Chris Ridley, Head of Paid Media, expects the outcome to mirror the 2017 Google Shopping case:

“I anticipate that we’ll see a situation similar to what happened with Google Shopping back in 2017,” Ridley explains. “In that case, the EU ruled against Google, leading the company to allow third-party Comparison Shopping Services (CSS) to compete more fairly. Google even provided these services with a 20% discount on cost-per-clicks (CPCs) to level the playing field.”

Ridley suggests that this precedent might influence future changes in Google’s approach to text advertising. “It’s possible that Google could introduce Comparison Text Advertising Services in the same way, potentially offering similar CPC discounts to foster competition in the text ad market,” he adds. “Such a move would aim to address concerns about monopolistic practices and encourage a fairer competitive environment on their search engine results pages.”

Market Dynamics and Google’s Competitors

Chris Lloyd, a B2B SaaS marketing consultant, highlights that Google’s market share has been shrinking due to its failure to innovate:

“Google’s decline is already evident, and it isn’t just because of regulatory actions,” Lloyd says. “The company has been losing market share for a few years. The main issue is their struggle to innovate, which puts them at a disadvantage compared to competitors like Perplexity, OpenAI, Meta, and Apple.”

Sam Tomlinson, Executive Vice President and digital strategist, critiques the 286-page ruling, especially its market definition, which he doubts will survive an appeal.

“The market definition in the ruling seems fundamentally flawed to me and is unlikely to be upheld on appeal,” Tomlinson states. “The court acknowledged that Google, despite being labelled a ‘monopoly,’ has invested heavily in innovation. This case shows that market leadership is not guaranteed indefinitely, as even Google admits the landscape can change.”

Tomlinson adds, “Every major company and investment entity operates with the same profit-driven mindset. This ruling’s approach feels misplaced. It’s not about good or bad practices but about profit, which is crucial for any business.”

Navah Hopkins, Brand Evangelist and PPC influencer at Optmyzr, expresses disappointment over the US’s failure to define search advertising as a separate market.

“I’m disappointed that the US couldn’t establish search advertising as a distinct market,” Hopkins says. “Although there’s another case coming in September, this ruling shows that the necessary information wasn’t presented. The timing of this case, starting in 2020 when PMax was introduced, highlights Google’s focus on diversifying. While the ruling classifies search text ads as a monopoly, it doesn’t address search advertising as a whole. PMax allows Google to navigate this while maintaining some search activity without breaching monopoly rules on text ads.”

Hopkins adds, “It seemed disingenuous to position Microsoft as a significant competitor. Also, the way CPCs have trended raises questions about whether the market itself drove up costs, rather than Google.”

Ethical and Practical Concerns

Sarah Stemen, a Paid Search Specialist, shares her disappointment with Google and her skepticism about the potential for significant penalties resulting from the recent ruling.

“I need to stop convincing myself that Google is exceptional just because they played a significant role in building my career. The reality is, Google is a capitalist-driven company that seems to have lost sight of core values, which is quite disheartening.”

She continues, “I remember the Microsoft case and hoped for a similar outcome here. However, I don’t believe we’ll see any substantial penalties imposed, especially given the current political and judicial climate. The system might not deliver the impactful consequences that many are expecting.”

Reid Thomas, a Marketing Strategist, notes that the recent US ruling closely mirrors the EU’s earlier decision and raises questions about the effectiveness of such measures.

“Our discussions are often US-centric, but this ruling seems very similar to the EU’s previous mandate that required search engine choice. The main question now is: What constitutes a meaningful penalty? Breaking up Google isn’t a feasible solution like dismantling the Bell System.”

He adds, “Targeting Google’s distribution agreements with the argument, ‘If Google is so great, why are they paying?’ seems misleading. The reality is that this is a competitive market, and other companies could also engage in such practices.”

The varied perspectives underscore the complexity of the situation and its potential impact on the tech industry, digital advertising, and antitrust regulation. As the legal process unfolds and potential remedies are debated, the industry is keenly observing how this decision could influence the future landscape of search and digital advertising.